2012 Presidential Election Polls

[carlfense]

Holy crap. Have you ever read the reasoning behind Unskewed Polls? These guys are legit:

The national polls of the presidential race remain skewed and this is an issue that remains important for following the political process and truly understanding what is taking place. The Gallup tracking poll, which has been over-sampled Democrats in the past, has released its latest numbers today showing President Obama leading 48 percent to 45 percent for Mitt Romney. But the non-skewed uses a sample weighted by the expected partisan makeup of the electorate, the QStarNews Daily Tracking poll, shows Romney leading over Obama by a 53 percent to 45 percent margin. The difference is the sample or the weighting, the latter result is based on a weight of 37.6 percent of the electorate being made up of Republican voters while 33.3 percent is made up of Democratic voters. The Gallup survey likely bases it's numbers on an expect turnout, or an “over-sample” of Democrats by a four to six percent margin.

LINK

How can a place making the claim that they're "more accurate" have that many egregious errors in one paragraph? While they're busy checking the poll data, how about running your own site's statement through some editing, huh?

The scary part is that you will see that site referenced either directly or in the comments on almost every conservative outlet.

Epistemic closure. Completely unable to see the crazy from within the crazy.

 

[carlfense]

Joe Trippi, a democratic pollster, explained that polls rely heavily on the previous elections to set their samplings Thus, 2004 was the baseline for sampling 2008 and 2008 becomes the baseline for 2012. I don't have a direct link (just saw him a few weeks ago on the tube), so discount it if you want, I'm just trying to answer your question.

Comparing Democrats in 2004 to Republicans in 2012:

A cottage industry of liberal bloggers and pundits arose to explain how “biased” sampling had skewed the polls. If you weighted Republicans and Democrats correctly, they argued, then John Kerry would be ahead. But that was missing the point. Pollsters don’t weight the partisanship of the electorate in one way or another. They simply survey a large, randomly selected group of people, and report their party identification. If there are more Republicans than Democrats in a collection of samples, it’s because there are more Republicans than Democrats.
Bush won, as you might recall. One lesson that emerged: The party that complains about the polls is one that’s about to have an unhappy election night. Which brings us to today. In a bizarro version of 2004, conservative bloggers and activists are working to show that the polls are obviously skewed against Mitt Romney. After all, how could he possibly lose to a president presiding over the worst economy in a generation? One blogger, Dean Chambers, runs a blog called “Unskewed Polls,” which weighs all polls to party identification used by Rasmussen. In his version of the presidential race, Mitt Romney is winning easily, 51.8 to 44 percent.

http://prospect.org/article/great-polling-conspiracy-2012

 

[zoogs]

I'll allow for concerns that certain polls over-sample - that is, they don't get a sample representative of the nation because they poll too many of one party or another.

I think it's fair to question if that party identification used by Rasmussen has any predictive power or is going to be representative of the results come election time. That poll has 37.6% Republicans and 33.3% Democrats, which, if accurate, would make a Romney victory in the popular vote not very surprising. Indeed, if 90% of voters are Republican, I think it just might "project" to a landslide win

 

[Comish]

Holy crap. Have you ever read the reasoning behind Unskewed Polls? These guys are legit:

The national polls of the presidential race remain skewed and this is an issue that remains important for following the political process and truly understanding what is taking place. The Gallup tracking poll, which has been over-sampled Democrats in the past, has released its latest numbers today showing President Obama leading 48 percent to 45 percent for Mitt Romney. But the non-skewed uses a sample weighted by the expected partisan makeup of the electorate, the QStarNews Daily Tracking poll, shows Romney leading over Obama by a 53 percent to 45 percent margin. The difference is the sample or the weighting, the latter result is based on a weight of 37.6 percent of the electorate being made up of Republican voters while 33.3 percent is made up of Democratic voters. The Gallup survey likely bases it's numbers on an expect turnout, or an “over-sample” of Democrats by a four to six percent margin.

LINK

How can a place making the claim that they're "more accurate" have that many egregious errors in one paragraph? While they're busy checking the poll data, how about running your own site's statement through some editing, huh?

The scary part is that you will see that site referenced either directly or in the comments on almost every conservative outlet.

Epistemic closure. Completely unable to see the crazy from within the crazy.

Epistemic closure. Completely unable to see the crazy from within the crazy.

Sounds like a plausible explanation for how Obama supporters can still support him even after supposedly paying attention for the last four years............... :lol:

 

[knapplc]

Epistemic closure. Completely unable to see the crazy from within the crazy.

Sounds like a plausible explanation for how Obama supporters can still support him even after supposedly paying attention for the last four years............... :lol:

Except that I'm not an Obama supporter. I'm a registered independent, and have been for the last dozen years or more. The independent movement is growing every year. You should join us. It's nicer here.

 

[Comish]

Epistemic closure. Completely unable to see the crazy from within the crazy.

Sounds like a plausible explanation for how Obama supporters can still support him even after supposedly paying attention for the last four years............... :lol:

Except that I'm not an Obama supporter. I'm a registered independent, and have been for the last dozen years or more. The independent movement is growing every year. You should join us. It's nicer here.

My response was generic...........not Knappic-specific.......................

But if you are not an Obama supporter, it's hard to discern when you have topics claiming Romney's campaign is based entirely on lies (as an example)

And, for the record, I understand the warts and bumps of all the candidates..............I just don't think the country can survive another four years under the current administration.

 

[carlfense]

I just don't think the country can survive another four years under the current administration.

The United States of America is much stronger than you think. We'll survive Romney or Obama.

 

[knapplc]

My response was generic...........not Knappic-specific.......................

But if you are not an Obama supporter, it's hard to discern when you have topics claiming Romney's campaign is based entirely on lies (as an example)

And, for the record, I understand the warts and bumps of all the candidates..............I just don't think the country can survive another four years under the current administration.

Well, I think all questions and responses should be knapplc-specific. Think about this - if the WHOLE WORLD were focused on making me happy, inevitably they could not fail, and I would be happy, and thus the world would be happy. My knapplc-centric view of the world is not only healthy, but productive and wise. But I digress.

I am not an "Obama supporter." I believe he is the lesser of two evils. I believe he is an ideologue, but short on ideas. He's a good man, I have no doubt, but his focus is more on the Little Man than Romney's (whom, by the way, I do not doubt is a good man). Romney's focus is on the wealthy, his philosophies focus on trickle-down economics which were debunked 30 years ago. Obama the man is not inherently better than Romney the man, but of the two, I would (and will) choose Obama. The Little Man needs his advocate. Romney is not that advocate.

Coincidentally, unless you're far wealthier than I, you are that Little Man (as am I).

Funny/interesting side note. Since my last post I've been polled. I answer the phone when the pollsters call and I almost always take the time to answer their questions. I feel that's as much my voice being heard as my vote these days.

The questions and my answers:

Democrat, Republican, or Independent? - Independent

Leaning Democrat or Republican? Middle - no lean

Obama or Romney? Obama

Fischer or Kerry? Fischer

Veteran? No.

Gun owner? Yes.

It was a quick survey, my favorite. I hate those surveys where they promise to take a "little of your time" and then take 25 minutes asking myriad versions of the same question.

Maybe that helps you understand where I'm coming from, maybe not.

 

[Comish]

My response was generic...........not Knappic-specific.......................

But if you are not an Obama supporter, it's hard to discern when you have topics claiming Romney's campaign is based entirely on lies (as an example)

And, for the record, I understand the warts and bumps of all the candidates..............I just don't think the country can survive another four years under the current administration.

Well, I think all questions and responses should be knapplc-specific. Think about this - if the WHOLE WORLD were focused on making me happy, inevitably they could not fail, and I would be happy, and thus the world would be happy. My knapplc-centric view of the world is not only healthy, but productive and wise. But I digress.

I am not an "Obama supporter." I believe he is the lesser of two evils. I believe he is an ideologue, but short on ideas. He's a good man, I have no doubt, but his focus is more on the Little Man than Romney's (whom, by the way, I do not doubt is a good man). Romney's focus is on the wealthy, his philosophies focus on trickle-down economics which were debunked 30 years ago. Obama the man is not inherently better than Romney the man, but of the two, I would (and will) choose Obama. The Little Man needs his advocate. Romney is not that advocate.

Coincidentally, unless you're far wealthier than I, you are that Little Man (as am I).

Funny/interesting side note. Since my last post I've been polled. I answer the phone when the pollsters call and I almost always take the time to answer their questions. I feel that's as much my voice being heard as my vote these days.

The questions and my answers:

Democrat, Republican, or Independent? - Independent

Leaning Democrat or Republican? Middle - no lean

Obama or Romney? Obama

Fischer or Kerry? Fischer

Veteran? No.

Gun owner? Yes.

It was a quick survey, my favorite. I hate those surveys where they promise to take a "little of your time" and then take 25 minutes asking myriad versions of the same question.

Maybe that helps you understand where I'm coming from, maybe not.

A well reasoned response.

But still we differ. As much as I would WANT Obama to be an advocate for the little man.........no scratch that.............I want the Prez to be an advocate for ALL men/women/ little or big), I'm so taken aback by his ego that I believe he is not really an advocate for anyone but himself and his self perception of how the world should be. Strong words for sure, but that's what I believe. I think he feigns advocacy for the "little man" because it plays well. For the record, I also should say I abhor this pitting of American vs American in a class warfare contest purely for political purposes. I have no resentment of the wealthy. I find it inspiring when people "make it big" through their own efforts. I applaud that, not envy it. And that is why, although you believe BO is the lesser of two evils, I believe a government -centered approach to every little obstacle we find in our path is fundamentally flawed and destined to collapse us into a nanny state where instead of celebrating individuality, we perpetuate a mediocrity of sameness.

I would also suggest your perception that Romney is an advocate for the wealthy is getting somewhat confused with his advocacy for business, which is in direct competition with Obama's advocacy for the government as the primary catalyst for economic growth and sustainability.

For what it's worth, I think Romney is being unbelievably under-served by his campaign staff. There is no doubt Obama and team are far better politicians. I just don't buy that they are better statesmen.

 

[knapplc]

Romney himself said that he's an advocate for the wealthy. His "47%" speech to the $50,000 plate crowd was, frankly, grim.

I would be interested in seeing factual (as in, not Fox News, not Rush Limbaugh, not that ilk) evidence of Obama's "ego." I think he's been cast that way by The Right, but that's not who he is. In fact, if any of these two is that caricature, it's more Romney - although I don't believe Romney is that, either. I think this is a Right-wing/Foxian construct based so very loosely in truth that unicorns could also exist within its parameters.

I would argue that Obama's path is no more flawed than that of Romney, but his direction - government as assistant to the Common Man - is better overall for the country than Romney's direction - government as assistant to Business, which will eventually help the Common Man. I do not believe Romney's assertion that government advocating for Business will eventually help Common Man. Let's directly help Common Man, and have them prop up business (a Darwinian take on business, sure, but more in keeping with Capitalism than the Republican view).

 

[ZRod]

I'm so taken aback by his ego that I believe he is not really an advocate for anyone but himself and his self perception of how the world should be.

No offense but I thought this was a little comical. It takes a pretty big ego for anyone to run for President and I would hope they try to push for their perception of how the world should be. After all isn't that why we're voting for them, because we agree with their ideas for the future?


I know that I personally disagree with you on a lot of political issues, but I'm always curious to see where people's view points come from, so...

I think he feigns advocacy for the "little man" because it plays well.

I'll admit I don't know a whole lot about his background but by all accounts he was one of the "little men" not that long ago being in dept along with his wife. So you would say he is forgetting his roots and just playing to the crowd?

I would also suggest your perception that Romney is an advocate for the wealthy is getting somewhat confused with his advocacy for business, which is in direct competition with Obama's advocacy for the government as the primary catalyst for economic growth and sustainability.

I guess this is a fundamental disagreement of policy, but with a sluggish economy and companies supposedly sitting on massive cash reserves who else is going to encourage economic growth? If the private sector isn't creating jobs because there is no demand wouldn't it behoove the government to invest in projects and spending that would create jobs and help bring about demand, and hopefully increase revenue? As opposed to doubling down on trickle down economics one more time.
Again nothing sinister here, just trying to feel out your views.

 

[Comish]

I'm so taken aback by his ego that I believe he is not really an advocate for anyone but himself and his self perception of how the world should be.

No offense but I thought this was a little comical. It takes a pretty big ego for anyone to run for President and I would hope they try to push for their perception of how the world should be. After all isn't that why we're voting for them, because we agree with their ideas for the future?I agree that anyone running for Prez must have an ego. But, most successful people are open to listening to others.....especially those experienced in matters beyond voting present as a Senator and running community organizing operations. It seems as if the sources BO trusts are limited to Valerie Jarret and Michelle (not exactly policy wonks) and political suggestions from Axelrod, Pluffe, and Gibbs. And, if you are voting for him because you agree with his vision for the future (America not being unique, and for more of a globalist, socialist society), then your assertion that we are on opposite sides is true.

I know that I personally disagree with you on a lot of political issues, but I'm always curious to see where people's view points come from, so...No problem here, it's always good to debate.

I think he feigns advocacy for the "little man" because it plays well.

I'll admit I don't know a whole lot about his background but by all accounts he was one of the "little men" not that long ago being in dept along with his wife. So you would say he is forgetting his roots and just playing to the crowd? The questions remain about just what his "little man" roots actually were. He went to a prestigious school in Hawaii, did a lot of coke and slacked through college (by his own admission), yet somehow had the wherewithal and financial abilities to travel extensively and afford Ivy colleges and Harvard Law. Who was footing the bill?

I would also suggest your perception that Romney is an advocate for the wealthy is getting somewhat confused with his advocacy for business, which is in direct competition with Obama's advocacy for the government as the primary catalyst for economic growth and sustainability.

I guess this is a fundamental disagreement of policy, but with a sluggish economy and companies supposedly sitting on massive cash reserves who else is going to encourage economic growth? They are sitting on the massive amounts of cash because of the uncertainty of future hits on businesses, as well as the looming Obamacare costs and impending debt crisis. As president, he has failed to provide any leadership to congress for fear of riling up some segment of the voting populace before the election and his stooges Reid and Pelosi crumple to his whims. If the private sector isn't creating jobs because there is no demand wouldn't it behoove the government to invest in projects and spending that would create jobs and help bring about demand, and hopefully increase revenue? You mean as in the entirely wasted stimulus billions? The shovel ready jobs that he later admitted weren't? The ceding of GM to the unions? As opposed to doubling down on trickle down economics one more time.
Again nothing sinister here, just trying to feel out your views. Nothing sinister taken, I'm just responding, but doubt I've changed any minds.

 

[Comish]

Romney himself said that he's an advocate for the wealthy. His "47%" speech to the $50,000 plate crowd was, frankly, grim. That was an very poorly phrased message that failed, no doubt. I think he was trying to say that government should help those who need it, not those who choose to take advantage, rather than exhibit some personal accountability. But he butchered the message and is getting hammered for it.

I would be interested in seeing factual (as in, not Fox News, not Rush Limbaugh, not that ilk) evidence of Obama's "ego." I think he's been cast that way by The Right, but that's not who he is. In fact, if any of these two is that caricature, it's more Romney - although I don't believe Romney is that, either. I think this is a Right-wing/Foxian construct based so very loosely in truth that unicorns could also exist within its parameters.

A couple of quick pulls from Great Britain and the Washington Post.

http://www.washingto...qpytT_blog.html

http://blogs.telegra...dangered-lives/

http://www.punditand...into-other.html

I would argue that Obama's path is no more flawed than that of Romney, but his direction - government as assistant to the Common Man - is better overall for the country than Romney's direction - government as assistant to Business, which will eventually help the Common Man. I do not believe Romney's assertion that government advocating for Business will eventually help Common Man. Let's directly help Common Man, and have them prop up business (a Darwinian take on business, sure, but more in keeping with Capitalism than the Republican view). So you are suggesting that direct help from the government (the entity that administers giant "programs" comical with mismanagement) is the most efficient manner of helping? Sorry, the larger the central office and the farther away from the potential recipient, the more opportunities for fraud and beauracratic malfeasance to occur. Which is why we have local school boards (the Dept of Education is a joke). Sorry, I'm drifing away from topic. I'm suggesting getting the government more OUT of the way than more IN the way is the prudent course.

 

[knapplc]

Jennifer Rubin writes the Right Turn blog for The Post, offering reported opinion from a conservative perspective. She covers a range of domestic and foreign policy issues and provides insight into the conservative movement and the Republican Party. Rubin came to The Post after three years with Commentary magazine. Her work has appeared in a number of print and online publications, including The Weekly Standard, where she has been a frequent contributor. Prior to her career in journalism, Rubin practiced labor law for two decades. She lives in Northern Virginia with her husband and two sons.

LINK

Peter Foster is the American editor of The Telegraph, Britain's most conservative newspaper. It's like offering unbiased opinions to Brits about their Liberals from America's MSNBC. Of course they're going to be biased - they lean left, too. Foster leans right and The Telegraph leans way right. Go figure that he'd parrot the same lines as America's conservatives. That blog you linked to is nothing more than Republican spin.

Seth Mandel is yet another conservative mouthpiece. Again, yet another cog in the conservative machine. Look up the stuff he writes if you don't believe me.

So you've offered three links to blogs written by people who all lean Right, who all write conservative bloggitry for a living, all of whose opinions are that Obama has a big ego. This is not factual evidence of an Obama ego, it's proof of an already-known opinion.

So you are suggesting that direct help from the government (the entity that administers giant "programs" comical with mismanagement) is the most efficient manner of helping? Sorry, the larger the central office and the farther away from the potential recipient, the more opportunities for fraud and beauracratic malfeasance to occur. Which is why we have local school boards (the Dept of Education is a joke). Sorry, I'm drifing away from topic. I'm suggesting getting the government more OUT of the way than more IN the way is the prudent course.

I'm not suggesting the underlined at all. That's a typical conservative misrepresentation of the position of Obama, and it's not only factually inaccurate, it hinders understanding. I'll agree with you wholeheartedly that government is both inefficient and often buggers things up. But that doesn't mean they don't have a role to play. You're not advocating elimination of a central government, either.

 

[ZRod]

They are sitting on the massive amounts of cash because of the uncertainty of future hits on businesses, as well as the looming Obamacare costs and impending debt crisis. As president, he has failed to provide any leadership to congress for fear of riling up some segment of the voting populace before the election and his stooges Reid and Pelosi crumple to his whims.

Uncertainty for sure, but I think it has more to do with the uncertainty in the global market rather than here in the States. Though you probably could make an argument for presidential uncertainty. I do think Romney was on the right track when he said they may not have to do anything at all for the economy to increase it's growth. It likely will happen no matter who is elected since it means 4 years of assumed "stability".
But blaming the healthcare mandate is a cop out to me. The majority of businesses who would be sitting on cash can either A) already afford the new changes (or they are insignificant), or pass them on to the consumer B) already have health insurance plans for their employees that may only need slight adjustments if any.

You mean as in the entirely wasted stimulus billions? The shovel ready jobs that he later admitted weren't?

I don't think 1.2 to 3.3 million jobs was a waste. But the money could have been invest more wisely, yes. I know Clinton's not popular here but he is a smart guy. He's said that the stimulus was never meant take us back to where we were but to stop the bleeding and get the economy moving in the right direction again, which it did.
You can't deny that this nations infrastructure is crumbling. The amount of work that would be created from upgrading the power grid, rebuilding roads bridges water and railways, and improving sewer and gas lines would be huge in boosting the economy. Locally for cities you might be able to get private investment for projects like Chicago is trying to do. But nationally I don't think many state governments have the means, without help from the federal government, to afford the projects.